If it’s an information service, no blocking. If it’s a telecom service, no blocking. But if it’s something in between, well not so fast . . .
More than 20 appeals of the FCC’s recent USF/ICC reform order have been filed, and it will be fascinating to see the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sort through all of the concerns raised. Of course, many of the appellants raise common issues, such as challenges to retroactive caps on cost recovery and/or the mandatory drive toward a default zero ICC rate for all switched services. (NTCA teed up both of these issues, among others, in its docketing statement filed with the court.)
But one party’s filing jumped out at me the other day. A docketing statement filed by the VON Coalition presents one straightforward – but quite astounding – issue:
The VON Coalition seeks review of the portions of the Report and Order . . . that impose a “No Blocking” obligation on providers of interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and one-way VoIP services . . . .
Before turning to why this appeal is so astounding from a public policy perspective, let’s step back and consider who’s part of the VON Coalition. The group’s website indicates that its members include AT&T, Google and Vonage. These are companies who typically claim to take very seriously seamless internetworking and the demands of consumers. Vonage years ago challenged a carrier that was allegedly blocking ports used by customers to initiate and receive VoIP traffic. Meanwhile, Google was one of the leading voices in public policy circles in the “net neutrality” debates, arguing among other things that a nondiscrimination rule should prevent “broadband providers from blocking, degrading, or prioritizing Internet traffic.”
So at least one leading member of the VON Coalition has argued that blocking in the context of a regulated telecom service is bad. Some VON members have argued that blocking in the context of a broadband information service is bad. But apparently, if it’s a different kind of information service (which is where many VoIP providers see themselves) or if it falls somewhere between an information and telecom service (which is where some others see VoIP), VON thinks a different standard should apply.
It’s astonishing to see the VON Coalition make such arguments given where they have been on blocking issues. Even if there could be legitimate questions about the application of certain obligations to information services, the FCC narrowly applied its new blocking rule to calls destined for or coming from the PSTN – and, once again, the VON Coalition seems to have no problem with applying blocking prohibitions even more broadly to information services in other contexts.
Before treading further down this rather awkward path, the VON Coalition group might want to revisit the prior consumer-centric mantra articulated by Google:
The fundamental principle is that it should be the consumer . . . that chooses what content and applications he or she interacts with, and which . . . services, applications and content will be the winners and losers. Thus, as the Commission has proposed, the core affirmative function of the nondiscrimination rule should be to prevent a [] provider from using its control over the network to favor or disadvantage (by blocking, degrading, prioritizing, throttling or other means) particular sources of content or applications.
AT&T rightfully noted in its own Public Policy Blog a while back the concerns about allowing some industry players to block calls on the PSTN while others were subject to blocking prohibitions. The FCC took sensible steps in its recent order to help remedy this regulatory disparity, in the interests of consumers and the integrity of the PSTN. It’s one thing for parties to have disagreements about compensation structures or interconnection rights. But it’s another thing altogether to see parties who purport to stand up for consumer interests against blocking in the context of both information and telecom services try to wiggle out of consumer protection duties when those obligations boomerang back their way. This ultimately begs the question – who is the VON Coalition really trying to protect?
Stay informed about the FCC’s USF/ICC reform proceeding. Read the Washington Report (NTCA member log-in required).
